Author
Topic: Cross and Crucifix (Read 2655 times)

Today I found a Catholic crucifix and saint medallion I wore in Iraq. It was all they had available and I didn't see any harm in wearing it, even as a Baptist. My question is, as an Orthodox, would it be frowned upon if I wore it again, at least until I get an Orthodox cross? I know it sounds silly, but I just want to get a few opinions first. Thanks!

Just wear it, don't get rid of it, there's no reason to. The popular "Orthodox" cross with three bars is mainly Slavic. If you went to Greece, Cyprus or anywhere else that wasn't Slavic and asked them to draw a cross they'd draw the same Latin cross you already know. No reason to get rid of something meaningful to you.

(I'm not Orthodox, just giving you practical advice if I can... There are Orthodox who will want you to throw away everything without any good reason because its "Catholic" when its also actually "Orthodox" and they don't know any better)

A cross is a cross, there is no such thing as an 'Orthodox' cross or a 'Greek' Cross, even though many Slavic Orthodox will mistakenly make this claim. I kind of think that St. Paul would sigh on this point!

We don't typically wear crucifixes. Therefore, I think it's better to wear a cross rather than a crucifix.

Logged

North American Eastern Orthodox Parish Council Delegate for the Canonization of Saints Twin Towers and Pentagon, as well as the Propagation of the Doctrine of the Assumption of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 (NAEOPCDCSTTPPDAMAFM®).

Is this a trick question? Most I know (baptismal crosses and such), and most vendors for these things have the cross, sans statuette of Christ.

Logged

North American Eastern Orthodox Parish Council Delegate for the Canonization of Saints Twin Towers and Pentagon, as well as the Propagation of the Doctrine of the Assumption of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 (NAEOPCDCSTTPPDAMAFM®).

Is this a trick question? Most I know (baptismal crosses and such), and most vendors for these things have the cross, sans statuette of Christ.

I agree. It's definitely unusual for Orthodox to wear crosses with corpus in my experience. However I find that many people use the word crucifix to mean any cross for wearing around the neck, and are often unaware that that's not strictly accurate, so I wonder if NicholasMyra was using the word in that sense.

James

Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos

Is this a trick question? Most I know (baptismal crosses and such), and most vendors for these things have the cross, sans statuette of Christ.

I agree. It's definitely unusual for Orthodox to wear crosses with corpus in my experience. However I find that many people use the word crucifix to mean any cross for wearing around the neck, and are often unaware that that's not strictly accurate, so I wonder if NicholasMyra was using the word in that sense.

James

Well, in Romania even the wearing of the so-called "baptismal cross" used to be quite rare or even non-existent . I think people were too poor to afford one.

The one I have is a Catholic crucifix. Protestants complain, and it's nitpicking to fight the Catholic Church, Christ is no longer dead and not on the cross.

It's not the cross we celebrate being empty (except maybe during the unnailing on holy friday), but the tomb. I've never understood the crucifix to be opposed to the resurrection. I've seen hand crosses with icons of the resurrection (2d version of the same thing being argued against) used by Orthodox priests for blessing and veneration.

Orthodox Crucifix the feet of Christ are side by side two nails,on the Catholic ones, there over one another and one nail...Catholics got it wrong, Orthodoxy is the right way ....Stick with the Orthodox Crucifix and Crosses, you can't go wrong.........

Catholic's confess a different Jesus from the Orthodox one ,their not the same , including their Mary ,And our Scriptual Blessed Theotokos.......

Orthodox Crucifix the feet on Christ are side by side two nails,on the Catholic ones, there over one another and one nail...Catholics got it wrong, Orthodoxy is the right way ....Stick with the Orthodox Crucifix and Crosses, you can't go wrong.........

Catholic's confess a different Jesus from the Orthodox one ,their not the same , including their Mary ,And our Scriptual Blessed Theotokos.......

Hmm, I didn't know the Vatican had changed their Creed again, what does it say now?

Is this a trick question? Most I know (baptismal crosses and such), and most vendors for these things have the cross, sans statuette of Christ.

I agree. It's definitely unusual for Orthodox to wear crosses with corpus in my experience. However I find that many people use the word crucifix to mean any cross for wearing around the neck, and are often unaware that that's not strictly accurate, so I wonder if NicholasMyra was using the word in that sense.

James

Well, in Romania even the wearing of the so-called "baptismal cross" used to be quite rare or even non-existent . I think people were too poor to afford one.

You may be right, but in the decade I've been Orthodox it's certainly been the norm (indeed strongly encouraged by Romanian priests) for us to always wear a cross. If you can't afford a gold one there's nothing stopping it being made of a cheaper material. Our church, a Romanian parish in the UK, sells wooden ones, brass ones and even ones that are made simply from woven/knotted yarn.

James

Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos

There is a difference between Cross and Crucifix, the Protestants have a big time problem with the Crucifix.

I'm traditional Latin Roman Catholic but I almost always wear a Celtic Cross.

It's a personal preference even though I'm not Irish.

A Crucifix ( with the corpus) is usually a distinctly Catholic emblem.

The one I have is a Catholic crucifix. Protestants complain, and it's nitpicking to fight the Catholic Church, Christ is no longer dead and not on the cross.

Yes. this is always what I hear from the Prots, especially the Evangelical variety. It's always that we Papists believe that Christ is still on the cross and the Resurrection is irrelevant.........wrong.

The Crucifix is the most powerful symbol in Christianity, it is the very image reminding us of what Almighty God himself sacrificed for us in order for his creation to obtain eternal salvation, no other religion, ever in history from what I know can declare this, that their God gave his very life for them, the Crucifix is not to be taken lightly or mocking God as he's still hanging on the cross, quite the contrary actually, it's a visual to never let us forget what he did.

The Prots really need to get straight on this and get it right and stop with the "Christ is no longer dead on the Cross babble".

Orthodox Crucifix the feet of Christ are side by side two nails,on the Catholic ones, there over one another and one nail...Catholics got it wrong, Orthodoxy is the right way ....Stick with the Orthodox Crucifix and Crosses, you can't go wrong.........

Catholic's confess a different Jesus from the Orthodox one ,their not the same , including their Mary ,And our Scriptual Blessed Theotokos.......

While I agree with most people here that the crucifix is fine to wear, I think the distinction between Orthodox portrayals of the Crucifixion and the Catholic crucifix has to do with the second commandment forbidding graven (carved) images. In Orthodoxy, the image of Christ on the Cross is always flat, painted (written) in proper iconography. But the Catholic crucifix contains a three dimensional figure of Our Lord which is viewed by Orthodoxy as violating the proscription against graven images. I could be mistaken, but that's my understanding.

But like I said, I agree with most others here. God knows the heart, and I see nothing wrong with wearing a crucifix out of devotion to Christ and thanksgiving for His passion. But then again, I am not a Priest. Just offering my two cents.

Selam

Logged

"There are two great tragedies: one is to live a life ruled by the passions, and the other is to live a passionless life."Selam, +GMK+

Hmm, The crosses that are worn by priests i.e. the pectoral cross depicts the corpus of Jesus. It matters not whether the cross on wears has the corpus of Christ or is only a cross. The early Christians depicted crosses mostly without the corpus but later on included it. Both versions are OK with me.

While I agree with most people here that the crucifix is fine to wear, I think the distinction between Orthodox portrayals of the Crucifixion and the Catholic crucifix has to do with the second commandment forbidding graven (carved) images.

While I agree with most people here that the crucifix is fine to wear, I think the distinction between Orthodox portrayals of the Crucifixion and the Catholic crucifix has to do with the second commandment forbidding graven (carved) images. In Orthodoxy, the image of Christ on the Cross is always flat, painted (written) in proper iconography. But the Catholic crucifix contains a three dimensional figure of Our Lord which is viewed by Orthodoxy as violating the proscription against graven images. I could be mistaken, but that's my understanding.

The Crucifix is not always flat. Bas relief is widely used in both hand and neck EO/BC crosses/crucifixes.

While I agree with most people here that the crucifix is fine to wear, I think the distinction between Orthodox portrayals of the Crucifixion and the Catholic crucifix has to do with the second commandment forbidding graven (carved) images. In Orthodoxy, the image of Christ on the Cross is always flat, painted (written) in proper iconography. But the Catholic crucifix contains a three dimensional figure of Our Lord which is viewed by Orthodoxy as violating the proscription against graven images. I could be mistaken, but that's my understanding.

But like I said, I agree with most others here. God knows the heart, and I see nothing wrong with wearing a crucifix out of devotion to Christ and thanksgiving for His passion. But then again, I am not a Priest. Just offering my two cents.

Selam

My priest (ROCOR) has said that there is nothing inherently wrong with statues, simply that icons are better, and deeper theologically, and that is why we use icons, and statues are improper to use in a church.